Bluey's Dad

I dunno OD, Brad Scott bleats about just about anything, even when he's on top of the ladder. Might be the exception though!

Huh? 'Steriods' are performance enhancing, my posts were pretty clearly about the illicit drug policy, in response to another poster's question about weed. Performance enhancing drugs should be tested for regularly, on or off season. There's no reason to test players for illicit drugs when they aren't playing or training, as in those circumstances they are not a risk to other players (or employees of the AFL, in this context). Not sure if you've wilfully misinterpreted my posts, genuinely don't know the difference, or simply made a mistake, but you are extrapolating an example out of something I didn't say. I think it is your logic that is flawed.

Yes it is, although it's debatable if it should be (a discussion for another time). I have no issue with it if it's during the off-season. No one impacted but themselves, and it's their risk to take. During the season (and pre-season I guess) it impacts on their teammates and opponents.

You might be found out, you might not. If we test, we know (or I guess if the AFL test, they know). I don't think an illicit drugs policy needs to be draconian or punishing or shaming at all. Random tests throughout the year, if they find something, they rehabilitate. No public disclosure, no fuss. Interesting you use the Saturday/Tuesday analogy given the 'suicide Tuesday' colloquialism. A player on a big come down in training is just as dangerous as one who is all coked up to the eyeballs. His reaction times and judgement will be severely diminished, and knowing this, means it is a conscious violation of that player's duty of care to his teammates. I think it's dangerous and I think a footballer's employment conditions are effected if other footballers are or have recently used illicit drugs. For this reason I think testing for illicit drugs is important. Public disclosure however is not useful, and is only so when the governing body in question is unable to enforce their own policy effectively, which unfortunately it seems applies to the AFL.

What about training? These points also apply when a player fronts up to training on an illicit substance. No issue with testing being removed for when the player is on leave though. Duty of care doesn't apply, if they want to do something illegal it's up to them in that case and the AFL doesn't need to come into it.

It's all or nothing though. The policy is there, rightly or wrongly, and a competent administration would implement it properly without protecting vested interests (in this case, GWS). The merits of an illicit drug testing policy itself to me are a different matter, but my thoughts are: - you can't show up to your job high, this should include footballers - many jobs include mandatory illicit drug testing, in order to reduce the incidents of the above - in football, each player has a limited duty of care* to the other players on the field, and being high during a game impinges on that duty (for example by effecting judgement) - the AFL is also bound to make its sport as 'safe' as is practicable given the activites of the sport itself. Players on illicit drugs make this harder - some illicit drugs can effect performance - some illicit drugs can contain banned substances - results of testing should be private (in an ideal world where the AFL can be trusted to implement the program) - the program should be geared towards helping and rehabilitation rather than punishment If a mod would like to split this into another thread debating the merits of the illicit drug program I would be all for that as we might be getting sidetracked here. * For example, not performing careless or violent acts.

Who cares about the AFL being able to implement and administer their own policies? I would have thought pretty much every footy fan?

Another thought on the public vs private thing - I agree with posters saying illicit drug testing and results should be private. However, given the example we have here, do we trust the AFL to actually follow through on their own policies without the public bringing pressure? I guess what I'm saying is that if the AFL were actually run properly, there'd be no need for the debate. We could trust that the AFL were testing and punishing/helping players based on results. What we can clearly see here is the AFL trying to bury their own (and GWS's) failure to properly implement their own drugs policy. Without the leak and subsequent public interest, nothing happens. It's a pretty sad day when the general public has to be a check and balance on the game's administrators who can't act in the game's (and players') own best interest. And then you get the reaction we've just seen against the leaker (in this case, the ex-girfriend), all because some big shots didn't do the right thing. The whole thing is so arse-about it makes me question why I follow this game at all.

Wow, that was fast. Thanks for the link, I don't normally read the herald sun. Now that that article's there, the implication that she's out for revenge will seep down into the punters' psyche and any evidence against Whitfield will be seen through that lens. This is sickening.

Welp 2 to 4 years it is then. Idiots.

This is the irony though. If he'd just stayed home, even if he was tested, the results would have been confidential. By trying to avoid the test (which didn't eventuate) he opened himself up to scrutiny. On a more general note, how long do we think it'll be before the AFL starts with the vilification of the ex-girlfriend? 'She's got an axe to grind, she's not reliable, she's making it up, looking for revenge' etc. Nice way to distract the punters from the real issue eh? I'm already imagining the radio call-backs: 'I know Lachie, he's a good guy, he wouldn't do this.' 'Lachie's a top bloke who stuck his dick in crazy' 'Where is the investigation into this ex-girlfriend is what I want to know! She's got a lot to answer for!' 'She just wants her 15 minutes of fame' I'd almost put money on this happening within the next few days.

Pretty sure they have the art of obfuscation down pat.

POTY

no chance we'll have the bye after one of them?

HA, you might be right there! We are at war with Essendon. ASADA are our allies. We are at war with ASADA. Essendon are our allies. I await news of the chocolate ration with bated breath. I'm certain that it will be increased. Now if you'll excuse me, I don't want to be late for my 2 minutes hate. I love AFL.

Don't think that's random. Looks like an AFL house approved fixture to me. They're probably coding those in to desensitise fans. It's all part of the plan...

I anticipate the following statement soon from the AFL overlords: "A full investigation in this case is not required as there was no scheduled drug test on the morning in question. We see no reason to punish Lachie. The avoiding of a theoretical drug test is manifestly different to the avoiding of an actual drug test. It works in a similar way to our equalisation policy." Or something equally convoluted and contrived.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You're a funny, funny man.

I very much hope that he signs with Richmond. I'm convinced the entire club is some sort of long-term psychological study on the human capacity for self-delusion.

The AFL needs a strong Essendon apparently. Funny that it didn't need a strong South Melbourne or Fitzroy.

It's so transparent isn't it. Their pretences get weaker and weaker.

I accept your weak attempt at backpedalling. We can now resume being internet friends.

Can't be true. Clarko told me so.

Which is why the betrayal stung so much.

I laughed so hard when I saw this in the presser. I really wish a journo would have actually done their job and quoted the actual experience and age differentials.